Fact or satirical fiction?

[[email protected]]

Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I suspect it's
a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen real-time like
this :o) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the jest? Here's
what was mailed:

NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
------------------------------------
Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO); report
submitted
by FO
Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs); large turboprop
Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility

CAPT was PF (pilot flying). On Approach (APCH) into ATL, the aircraft
was
stabilized one mile outside Final Approach Fix (FAF) at 2,700 ft MSL.
Aircraft flew through the Localizer (LOC), overcompensated and flew
through
the LOC again at the Marker. Once the Marker light illuminated the Gear
Down/Landing Checklist, to the line, was called. FO proceeded with the
Landing Checklist and called out the major deviations.
* FO: several "wild excursions" ensued.
* At 400 ft AGL, FO stated: "We were full-scale Right of LOC and on
Glide
Slope (GS)."
* At a point above 200 ft AGL, FO called Go-Around (GAR).
* At 200 ft AGL, FO: "We broke out well Right of the Runway (RWY) and
adjacent to the Touchdown Zone (TDZ).
* The CAPT called for GAR; FO pushed up the Power.
* CAPT called: "No, I got the RWY made."
Landing (LNDG) was made after "several wild banks and ensuing jest by
the
Tower (TWR)."
FO self-evaluation:
* "I should have been more assertive as an FO"; and
* I never should have allowed the APCH to pass the first deviation
after
missing the LOC."


Ramapriya

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I suspect it's
> a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen real-time like
> this :o) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the jest?

Are you asking about the "ensuing jest" being broadcast on the radio? I
don't see anything in the narrative that claims the "ensuing jest" was
broadcast on the radio. I don't see any good reason to rule that out, but
it would certainly be unusual for the tower to transmit critique of a
landing pilot during the landing. However, it could well be that the
narrative simply refers to comments made in the tower itself, among the
controllers and not transmitted on the radio.

As far as verifying it goes, well...if it wasn't transmitted on the radio,
you'd have to ask the people who were in the tower at the time. Presumably
that's what the author of the narrative did.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

Many years ago I was parked in my car near the approach (ILS
Rwy 4 at SPI) with the weather at about 400-1. I saw an ANG
F84F fighter breakout at 400 feet, well to the side of the
runway in a 50 degree bank.

Just go to the NASA website and look up the incident by case
number. Sounds like a general and possible screwup. A
missed approach on an ILS should always be done if the
needle even reaches the full scale, because you have no idea
how far off scale you are at that point.


http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
| Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I
suspect it's
| a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen
real-time like
| this :o) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the
jest? Here's
| what was mailed:
|
| NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
| ------------------------------------
| Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO);
report
| submitted
| by FO
| Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs);
large turboprop
| Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
| ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility
|
| CAPT was PF (pilot flying). On Approach (APCH) into ATL,
the aircraft
| was
| stabilized one mile outside Final Approach Fix (FAF) at
2,700 ft MSL.
| Aircraft flew through the Localizer (LOC), overcompensated
and flew
| through
| the LOC again at the Marker. Once the Marker light
illuminated the Gear
| Down/Landing Checklist, to the line, was called. FO
proceeded with the
| Landing Checklist and called out the major deviations.
| * FO: several "wild excursions" ensued.
| * At 400 ft AGL, FO stated: "We were full-scale Right of
LOC and on
| Glide
| Slope (GS)."
| * At a point above 200 ft AGL, FO called Go-Around (GAR).
| * At 200 ft AGL, FO: "We broke out well Right of the
Runway (RWY) and
| adjacent to the Touchdown Zone (TDZ).
| * The CAPT called for GAR; FO pushed up the Power.
| * CAPT called: "No, I got the RWY made."
| Landing (LNDG) was made after "several wild banks and
ensuing jest by
| the
| Tower (TWR)."
| FO self-evaluation:
| * "I should have been more assertive as an FO"; and
| * I never should have allowed the APCH to pass the first
deviation
| after
| missing the LOC."
|
|
| Ramapriya
|

[Andrew Sarangan]

It seems realistic to me. I don't see anything here that might suggest
it is fictional.


wrote:
> Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I suspect it's
> a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen real-time like
> this :o) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the jest? Here's
> what was mailed:
>
> NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
> ------------------------------------
> Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO); report
> submitted
> by FO
> Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs); large turboprop
> Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
> ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility
>
> CAPT was PF (pilot flying). On Approach (APCH) into ATL, the aircraft
> was
> stabilized one mile outside Final Approach Fix (FAF) at 2,700 ft MSL.
> Aircraft flew through the Localizer (LOC), overcompensated and flew
> through
> the LOC again at the Marker. Once the Marker light illuminated the Gear
> Down/Landing Checklist, to the line, was called. FO proceeded with the
> Landing Checklist and called out the major deviations.
> * FO: several "wild excursions" ensued.
> * At 400 ft AGL, FO stated: "We were full-scale Right of LOC and on
> Glide
> Slope (GS)."
> * At a point above 200 ft AGL, FO called Go-Around (GAR).
> * At 200 ft AGL, FO: "We broke out well Right of the Runway (RWY) and
> adjacent to the Touchdown Zone (TDZ).
> * The CAPT called for GAR; FO pushed up the Power.
> * CAPT called: "No, I got the RWY made."
> Landing (LNDG) was made after "several wild banks and ensuing jest by
> the
> Tower (TWR)."
> FO self-evaluation:
> * "I should have been more assertive as an FO"; and
> * I never should have allowed the APCH to pass the first deviation
> after
> missing the LOC."
>
>
> Ramapriya

[Cub Driver]

On 25 Mar 2006 08:47:33 -0800, wrote:

>CAPT was PF (pilot flying).

PF?

Sounds to me like a (weak) satire on flying acronyms.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:01:10 -0500, Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT
net> wrote:

>On 25 Mar 2006 08:47:33 -0800, wrote:
>
>>CAPT was PF (pilot flying).
>
>PF?
>
>Sounds to me like a (weak) satire on flying acronyms.

I thought PF and PNF (Pilot Flying/Pilot Not Flying) was one way
airlines designate who's actually manipulating the controls in their
procedures since the captain is PIC regardless of who's leg it is?

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> It seems realistic to me. I don't see anything here that might suggest
> it is fictional.
>
It's not:
https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/portal/STAGE.ASRS_BRIEF_REPORT?RPT_NBR=294800&AC_VAR=TRUE&RPRT_VAR=TRUE&ANMLY_VAR=TRUE&SYN_VAR=TRUE&NARR_VAR=TRUE&NARR_SRCH=''

>
> wrote:
>> Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I suspect it's
>> a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen real-time like
>> this :o) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the jest? Here's
>> what was mailed:
>>
>> NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
>> ------------------------------------
>> Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO); report
>> submitted
>> by FO
>> Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs); large turboprop
>> Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
>> ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility
>>
>> CAPT was PF (pilot flying). On Approach (APCH) into ATL, the aircraft
>> was
>> stabilized one mile outside Final Approach Fix (FAF) at 2,700 ft MSL.
>> Aircraft flew through the Localizer (LOC), overcompensated and flew
>> through
>> the LOC again at the Marker. Once the Marker light illuminated the Gear
>> Down/Landing Checklist, to the line, was called. FO proceeded with the
>> Landing Checklist and called out the major deviations.
>> * FO: several "wild excursions" ensued.
>> * At 400 ft AGL, FO stated: "We were full-scale Right of LOC and on
>> Glide
>> Slope (GS)."
>> * At a point above 200 ft AGL, FO called Go-Around (GAR).
>> * At 200 ft AGL, FO: "We broke out well Right of the Runway (RWY) and
>> adjacent to the Touchdown Zone (TDZ).
>> * The CAPT called for GAR; FO pushed up the Power.
>> * CAPT called: "No, I got the RWY made."
>> Landing (LNDG) was made after "several wild banks and ensuing jest by
>> the
>> Tower (TWR)."
>> FO self-evaluation:
>> * "I should have been more assertive as an FO"; and
>> * I never should have allowed the APCH to pass the first deviation
>> after
>> missing the LOC."
>>
>>
>> Ramapriya
>

[Scott Skylane]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2006 08:47:33 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>CAPT was PF (pilot flying).
>
>
> PF?
>
> Sounds to me like a (weak) satire on flying acronyms.

Not at all. In fact, the FAA encourages us airline types to re-do all
our manuals and checklists to include references to PF and PNF, as
opposed to Captain and First Officer, in situations that describe who is
actually manipulating the flight controls.

Happy Flying(or Not Flying)!
Scott Skylane

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message

> Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
> ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility

It's been a while since I flew, but are ILS minimums now as shown above?
3/8 mile?

[Jim Macklin]

The controlling visibility, once a flight is at or past the
FAF, is flight visibility. If the pilot can see the
required distance, he has minimums and can land. Commercial
operations can't make the approach to "look see" unless the
reported visibility is above minimums, but can continue if
at/past the FAF. Part 91 can fly the approach in any
condition, but must have the required items identified at DH
and have the flight visibility to land.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
|
| > wrote in message
|
| > Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
| > ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility
|
| It's been a while since I flew, but are ILS minimums now
as shown above?
| 3/8 mile?
|
|

[Jon Woellhaf]

I guess it's time to repost this:

(A recent update to the British Airways Flight Operations Manual)
Flight Operations Department Notice, Operational
Origin: Operational Standards Group to: All fleets - long and short haul.
Eff. Date: 01-05-95.
Subject: Pilot Role Reversal During PICUS.

There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This
notice hopefully will clear up any misunderstandings.

The titles P1, P2 and copilot will now cease to have any meaning within the
BA operations manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot,
Non-Handling Pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot,
Handling Non-Landing Pilot and Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the
takeoff and landing, except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling
Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to
the Landing Pilot at 80 knots.

The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling) pilot
reads the checklists to the Handling Landing Pilot until after the Before
Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the
handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the Handling
Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "Decision Altitude"
call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "Go Around," in which
case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot continues handling and the Non-Handling
Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of "Land" or "Go
Around," as appropriate.

In view of recent confusion over these roles, it was deemed necessary to
restate them clearly.

Authority: Operational Standards Group S 4220 H3 TBA,OPS12/A34/0595

[Jim Macklin]

The British can screw up the language worse than basketball
player from the hood.



"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
. ..
|I guess it's time to repost this:
|
| (A recent update to the British Airways Flight Operations
Manual)
| Flight Operations Department Notice, Operational
| Origin: Operational Standards Group to: All fleets - long
and short haul.
| Eff. Date: 01-05-95.
| Subject: Pilot Role Reversal During PICUS.
|
| There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role
titles. This
| notice hopefully will clear up any misunderstandings.
|
| The titles P1, P2 and copilot will now cease to have any
meaning within the
| BA operations manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling
Pilot,
| Non-Handling Pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling
Landing Pilot,
| Handling Non-Landing Pilot and Non-Handling Non-Landing
Pilot.
|
| The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will
handle the
| takeoff and landing, except in role reversal when he is
the Non-Handling
| Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands
the handling to
| the Landing Pilot at 80 knots.
|
| The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is
handling) pilot
| reads the checklists to the Handling Landing Pilot until
after the Before
| Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing
Pilot hands the
| handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then
becomes the Handling
| Non-Landing Pilot.
|
| The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the
"Decision Altitude"
| call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the
handling to the
| Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "Go
Around," in which
| case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot continues handling and
the Non-Handling
| Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call
of "Land" or "Go
| Around," as appropriate.
|
| In view of recent confusion over these roles, it was
deemed necessary to
| restate them clearly.
|
| Authority: Operational Standards Group S 4220 H3
TBA,OPS12/A34/0595
|
|

[Scott Skylane]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The British can screw up the language worse than basketball
> player from the hood.

Um, that was a joke, Jim.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Jim Macklin]

So was mine
"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The British can screw up the language worse than
basketball
| > player from the hood.
|
| Um, that was a joke, Jim.
|
| Happy Flying!
| Scott Skylane

[Michael Ware]

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
. ..
> I guess it's time to repost this:
>
> (A recent update to the British Airways Flight Operations Manual)
> Flight Operations Department Notice, Operational
> Origin: Operational Standards Group to: All fleets - long and short haul.
> Eff. Date: 01-05-95.
> Subject: Pilot Role Reversal During PICUS.
>
> There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This
> notice hopefully will clear up any misunderstandings.
>
> The titles P1, P2 and copilot will now cease to have any meaning within
the
> BA operations manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot,
> Non-Handling Pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot,
> Handling Non-Landing Pilot and Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot.
>
> The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the
> takeoff and landing, except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling
> Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to
> the Landing Pilot at 80 knots.
>
> The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling) pilot
> reads the checklists to the Handling Landing Pilot until after the Before
> Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the
> handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the
Handling
> Non-Landing Pilot.
>
> The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "Decision Altitude"
> call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the
> Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "Go Around," in which
> case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot continues handling and the
Non-Handling
> Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of "Land" or "Go
> Around," as appropriate.
>
> In view of recent confusion over these roles, it was deemed necessary to
> restate them clearly.
>
> Authority: Operational Standards Group S 4220 H3 TBA,OPS12/A34/0595
>
>
How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

[Skywise]

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in
:

> I guess it's time to repost this:
>
> (A recent update to the British Airways Flight Operations Manual)
> Flight Operations Department Notice, Operational
> Origin: Operational Standards Group to: All fleets - long and short
> haul. Eff. Date: 01-05-95.
> Subject: Pilot Role Reversal During PICUS.
>
> There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This
> notice hopefully will clear up any misunderstandings.
>
> The titles P1, P2 and copilot will now cease to have any meaning within
> the BA operations manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot,
> Non-Handling Pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot,
> Handling Non-Landing Pilot and Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot.
>
> The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the
> takeoff and landing, except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling
> Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling
> to the Landing Pilot at 80 knots.
>
> The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling)
> pilot reads the checklists to the Handling Landing Pilot until after the
> Before Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot
> hands the handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then
> becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot.
>
> The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "Decision
> Altitude" call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling
> to the Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "Go Around,"
> in which case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot continues handling and the
> Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of
> "Land" or "Go Around," as appropriate.
>
> In view of recent confusion over these roles, it was deemed necessary to
> restate them clearly.
>
> Authority: Operational Standards Group S 4220 H3 TBA,OPS12/A34/0595

Except on alternate tuesdays beginning with the first tuesday
of March, 1847.

The only exception is if the date is a prime number.

Alternately, if the temperature is above 280 degrees kelvin, the
roles can be redefined by the passengers as they see fit.

On the other hand, if the stewardess is a male in drag, then
the first officer must use the latrine and divine the answer
from the pattern of the bubbles in the loo.

No, I'm not confused. Makes perfect sense to me. :)

Hyperintelligent shades of the color blue are exempt from all the
above and must report directly to the mice.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[John Gaquin]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:DpGVf.850$t22.20@dukeread08...
> The controlling visibility, once a flight is at or past the
> FAF, is flight visibility. If the pilot can see the
> required distance, he has minimums and can land. Commercial
> operations can't make the approach to "look see" unless the
> reported visibility is above minimums, but can continue if
> at/past the FAF. Part 91 can fly the approach in any
> condition, but must have the required items identified at DH
> and have the flight visibility to land.

Jim, Jim, Jim...... All that is very nice, and proves you can regurgitate
arcana with the best of them, but doesn't answer my question. The report as
posted seems to indicate that the ILS minimums of the approach in question
are 200 and 3/8 mile. Is that legit? All the time I was flying, basic ILS
minimums were 200 and 1/2.

[Jim Macklin]

I can't answer that because I never saw the airport or
approach identified, so I can't look it up. Was it in the
USA or Europe? But if there was an accident, the current
reported weather would be reported.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:DpGVf.850$t22.20@dukeread08...
| > The controlling visibility, once a flight is at or past
the
| > FAF, is flight visibility. If the pilot can see the
| > required distance, he has minimums and can land.
Commercial
| > operations can't make the approach to "look see" unless
the
| > reported visibility is above minimums, but can continue
if
| > at/past the FAF. Part 91 can fly the approach in any
| > condition, but must have the required items identified
at DH
| > and have the flight visibility to land.
|
| Jim, Jim, Jim...... All that is very nice, and proves you
can regurgitate
| arcana with the best of them, but doesn't answer my
question. The report as
| posted seems to indicate that the ILS minimums of the
approach in question
| are 200 and 3/8 mile. Is that legit? All the time I was
flying, basic ILS
| minimums were 200 and 1/2.
|
|

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:18:04 -0900, Scott Skylane
> wrote:

>Not at all. In fact, the FAA encourages us airline types to re-do all
>our manuals and checklists to include references to PF and PNF, as
>opposed to Captain and First Officer, in situations that describe who is
>actually manipulating the flight controls.

And when solo, am I both PF and PNF?

>Happy Flying(or Not Flying)!

Surely that should be HF and HNF!

What surprised (and dismayed) me most about going back to aviation
after fifty years was the insane proliferation of acronyms.

That, and spelling "mike" as "mic".

That, and pronouncing Baker as Bravo. (Alpha didn't bother me somehow,
nor Delta; perhaps I was Aristotle in a previous incarnation.)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:9MLVf.913$t22.188@dukeread08...
>I can't answer that because I never saw the airport or
> approach identified, so I can't look it up. Was it in the
> USA or Europe? But if there was an accident, the current
> reported weather would be reported.
>
>
>

https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/portal/STAGE.ASRS_BRIEF_REPORT?RPT_NBR=294800&AC_VAR=TRUE&RPRT_VAR=TRUE&ANMLY_VAR=TRUE&SYN_VAR=TRUE&NARR_VAR=TRUE&NARR_SRCH=''

[Jim Macklin]

Didn't see 3/8 mile anywhere.

NASDAC BRIEF REPORT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INFORMATION

Data Source: AVIATION SAFETY REPORTING SYSTEM
Report Number: 294800
Local Date(Yr/Mon): 199501
Local Day:
Local Quarter Time: 0601 To 1200
Facilty ID Nr Aircraft: ATL
State of Facility Nr Acft: GA
Magnetic Bearing (deg):
Facility Distance (nm):
Altitude AGL - LO(ft) 0
Altitude AGL - HI(ft) 200
Altitude MSL - LO(ft)
Altitude MSL - HI(ft)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental/Location Information

Weather Conditions: IMC
Ceiling: 200
Light Condition: Daylight
Runway Vis - LO(ft): 5000
Runway Vis - HI(ft): 5000
Visual Range - LO (sm): .5
Visual Range - HI (sm): .5



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYNOPSIS

ACFT DEVIATED FROM LOC (FULL-SCALE DEFLECTION), AND
CONTINUED BELOW DECISION HEIGHT TO LNDG, AFTER SEVERAL WILD
BANKS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NARRATIVE

ON APCH INTO ATL, 2700 FT MSL, 1 MI OUTSIDE FINAL APCH FIX,
THE ACFT WAS STABILIZED. CAPT FLYING FLEW THROUGH THE LOC,
OVER COMPENSATED AND FLEW BACK THROUGH THE LOC AGAIN AT THE
MARKER. ONCE THE MARKER LIGHT ILLUMINATED, THE 'GEAR
DOWN/LNDG CHKLIST, TO THE LINE, WAS CALLED. I PROCEEDED WITH
THE LNDG CHKLIST AND CALLED OUT THE MAJOR DEVS. SEVERAL WILD
EXCURSIONS ENSUED. AT 400 FT AGL, WE WERE FULL-SCALE R OF
LOC AND ON GS. I CALLED GAR, AT THAT POINT, NOW 200 FT AGL,
WE BROKE OUT WELL R OF THE RWY AND ADJACENT TO THE TOUCHDOWN
ZONE. THE CAPT CALLED GAR. I PUSHED UP THE PWR, TO WHICH HE
CALLED, 'NO, I GOT THE RWY MADE.' LNDG WAS MADE AFTER
SEVERAL WILD BANKS AND AN ENSUING JEST BY THE TWR. I SHOULD
HAVE BEEN MORE ASSERTIVE AS AN FO AND NEVER ALLOWED THE APCH
TO PASS THE FIRST DEV AFTER MISSING THE LOC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Information



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings For Aircraft Sequence 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Info

Acft Make/Model Desc: Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Crew Count: 2
Passenger Count:
Aircraft Involved: Unique Event
Flight Conduct Rule: Part 121
Flight Purpose: Passenger

Operation Type

Carrier Operation: Air Carrier
GA Operation:
Other Operation:

Phase of Flight

Climbout:
Climbout Other:
Cruise:
Other Cruise:
Descent: Approach
Other Descent:
Ground:
Other Ground:
Landing
Other Landing: Landing
Other Flight Phase:

Airspace Info

Class A:
Class B: ATL
Class C:
Class D: ATL
Class E:
Class G:
Special Use:
Temp Use:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings


Anomaly Descriptors

Acft Equip Anomaly:
ASP Anomaly:
Alt Dev Anomaly:
Cabin Event Anomaly:
Conflict Anomaly:
Excursion Anomaly:
Ground Encounter Anomaly:
Incursion Anomaly:
In-Flight Anomaly:
Maintenance Anomaly:
Non-Adherence Anomaly: Published Procedure
Non-Adherence Other Anomaly:
Other Anomaly:
Other Spatial Dev. Anomaly: Track Or Heading
Deviation

Anomaly Consequences

Consequence Desc:
Other Consequence Desc:
Misc. Consequence Desc:

Anomaly Detected By

Controller A: Unspecified
Controller B:
Crew A: Unspecified
Crew B:

Anomaly Resolution

Aircraft:
Controller:
Crew:
Other Action:
No Action: Anomaly Accepted
Event Type: Unique Event




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporter Information



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings For Reporter Sequence 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reporter Function

Controller:
Flight Attendant:
Flight Crew: First Officer
Instructor:
Maintenance:
Observer:
Other Personell:
Oversight:
Reporter Activity: Monitoring

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings For Reporter Sequence 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reporter Function

Controller:
Flight Attendant:
Flight Crew: Captain
Instructor:
Maintenance:
Observer:
Other Personell:
Oversight: PIC
Reporter Activity: Pilot Flying

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings For Reporter Sequence 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reporter Function

Controller: Local
Flight Attendant:
Flight Crew:
Instructor:
Maintenance:
Observer:
Other Personell:
Oversight:
Reporter Activity: Controlling




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END REPORT

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:9MLVf.913$t22.188@dukeread08...
| >I can't answer that because I never saw the airport or
| > approach identified, so I can't look it up. Was it in
the
| > USA or Europe? But if there was an accident, the
current
| > reported weather would be reported.
| >
| >
| >
|
|
https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/portal/STAGE.ASRS_BRIEF_REPORT?RPT_NBR=294800&AC_VAR=TRUE&RPRT_VAR=TRUE&ANMLY_VAR=TRUE&SYN_VAR=TRUE&NARR_VAR=TRUE&NARR_SRCH=''
|
|

[Darrell S]

An interesting sidelight. Instructing China airlines pilots in the MD-80
flight simulator. The procedure is to have the FO be the "pilot flying"
even though he is really just monitoring the autopilot. The Captain is
looking for the runway as they approach minimums. We brief them that if the
Captain doesn't see the runway and call that out and assume control by
minimums, the FO is to execute a go around.

We had a hard time with their culture to convince the Captain that this is
OK. The Captains thought this violated the Captain's authority by allowing
the FO to make the go around just because the Captain hadn't said anything
by minimums. We finally got around that by telling the Captain that HE has
briefed the FO to go around under those conditions so the FO is only
following the Captain's instruction.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
. ..
>I guess it's time to repost this:
>
> (A recent update to the British Airways Flight Operations Manual)
> Flight Operations Department Notice, Operational
> Origin: Operational Standards Group to: All fleets - long and short haul.
> Eff. Date: 01-05-95.
> Subject: Pilot Role Reversal During PICUS.
>
> There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This
> notice hopefully will clear up any misunderstandings.
>
> The titles P1, P2 and copilot will now cease to have any meaning within
> the BA operations manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot,
> Non-Handling Pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot,
> Handling Non-Landing Pilot and Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot.
>
> The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the
> takeoff and landing, except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling
> Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to
> the Landing Pilot at 80 knots.
>
> The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling) pilot
> reads the checklists to the Handling Landing Pilot until after the Before
> Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the
> handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the
> Handling Non-Landing Pilot.
>
> The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "Decision Altitude"
> call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the
> Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "Go Around," in which
> case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot continues handling and the
> Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of
> "Land" or "Go Around," as appropriate.
>
> In view of recent confusion over these roles, it was deemed necessary to
> restate them clearly.
>
> Authority: Operational Standards Group S 4220 H3 TBA,OPS12/A34/0595
>

[John Gaquin]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in

>I can't answer that because I never saw the airport or
> approach identified, so I can't look it up. Was it in the
> USA or Europe? But if there was an accident, the current
> reported weather would be reported.

here's the first segment of the original post in this thread:
********************
NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
------------------------------------
Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO); report
submitted
by FO
Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs); large turboprop
Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility
*****************************

Note: "Atlanta, GA (ATL)" and "ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi
visibility"

That's what I'm referring to. I've never seen an ILS with these minimums,
and I've flown lotsa lotsa ILSs into ATL (although, some were Cat II and
III) Maybe a typo, but that's why I asked.

[John Gaquin]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in

> Didn't see 3/8 mile anywhere.

here's the first segment of the original post in this thread:
********************
NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
------------------------------------
Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO); report
submitted
by FO
Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs); large turboprop
Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility
*****************************